As Third Party in Interest, the United Transportation Union was advised of the pendency of this dispute, but chose not to file a submission with the Board.

The Claims contend that Carrier violated the Agreement when on five days in April and one day in May 1988, employees other than Carmen were allowed to lace air hoses and perform necessary air tests at Carrier's Parson Yard, Columbus, Ohio. Before this Board, Carrier defends against payment of the Claims on a number of procedural grounds. However, no adequate substantive defense is offered with regard to the merits of the Claims.

The Board finds Carrier's procedural defenses unpersuasive. First, a difference between the reparations sought in the original claim and that requested before this Board is not normally considered a fatal defect, precluding review on the merits. This Board has frequently modified reparations for a variety of reasons, and when faced with a situation where the reparations sought have been increased in the course of handling on the property, or on appeal to this Board, the original claim is usually considered as controlling, if our Award requires monetary payments.

With regard to Carrier's second procedural argument, that two claims were combined for submission 'to the Board without its concurrence, it must be noted that the Board encourages the parties to consolidate identical claims, for obvious workload reasons which do not need further detailing here. Such consolidation of identical claims is not a procedural defect, even when done ex parte.

The Board concludes that the Claims have merit. They will be sustained as originally presented.

A W A R D